Do you pay attention to what the market is for starting pitching? Did you see Ryan Dempster rejected a 2 year, $25 million offer? Ryan "35 y.o., 5.09 ERA in Texas" Dempster.

I'd say those (pitchers) will all be bargains compared to the commitment it takes to get Sanchez. Especially to pitch in KC, who would likely have to overpay. I'll take two SPs in Guthrie and Shields for what you'll have to pay Sanchez.

And they need a "win now" attitude because the "wait for the future" BS has been going on since 1994.

KC used to be a baseball town. This is the most excited I've heard people around here since 2003.

I want them to win baseball games this season, not best farm system.

The only thing I think they accomplished is to maybe improve to be an 80-win team.

As doub and others have pointed out most prospects, even the highly regarded ones, don't work out. I still like to have a decent farm system if for no other reason than it can help you great some proven players in return for your young talent. I think this is a good move by KC, and with the blockbuster three team trade involving the Indians, who appeared to help themselves too, where does that leave our team?

Still the second-best team on paper in the AL Central behind Detroit.

The Sox still have better pitching from top to bottom than both Kansas City and Cleveland. Better lineup, too, IMO.

I don't. Starting pitching definitely an edge to the sox, bullpen definitely an edge to the royals.

Holland, Herrera, Collins and crow are studs. I like Nate jones and crain, Thornton is a year older, Addison reed didn't prove much to me last year. I love veal's line but he doesn't have the history that he royals do.

The only thing I think they accomplished is to maybe improve to be an 80-win team.

Agreed. I like the move only if it's just the opening salvo to a couple other trades/signings. Hopefully that's the case. If not...what does this trade really do for them when Shields leaves in a couple years?

Agreed. I like the move only if it's just the opening salvo to a couple other trades/signings. Hopefully that's the case. If not...what does this trade really do for them when Shields leaves in a couple years?

What positions on the Sox would you rather have a WhiteSox instead of Royal?

How are they less frightening now? Was Myers expected to carry them next season? Was 300-400 innings-ish of the Royals 4th and 5th starter merry go round last year so much more intimidating that the 220 IP Shields will give you and whatever Davis will, as well?

Because Shields is under control for two seasons and isn't turning that franchise around. He is a solid number two pitcher and that's it. Myers is already an upgrade over Frenchy which is a huge need by the way. So you gave up three out of your four best prospects for a good pitcher and a bullpen arm. Congrats. If you are the Reds, I get it, if you are the Royals I have no idea what you are doing.

Guys who lived up to their potential and became one of the best players in the world: Hamilton, Ichiro, Mauer, Teixeira, Reyes... I'll be generous and give you Baldelli, too, as who knows what his career could have been. So that's 6.

Guys who became solid MLB players but did/have not lived up to their hype: Johnson, Pena, Phillips, Upton, Young, Rios, Weeks... 7.

Because Shields is under control for two seasons and isn't turning that franchise around. He is a solid number two pitcher and that's it. Myers is already an upgrade over Frenchy which is a huge need by the way. So you gave up three out of your four best prospects for a good pitcher and a bullpen arm. Congrats. If you are the Reds, I get it, if you are the Royals I have no idea what you are doing.

She's list is a better comparison than yours and even yours has very few "busts" on it.

Because they were deep in prospects and light on starting pitching. Trade from a strength to fill a weakness. And Montgomery has fallen from grace like a meteor here, he needed a change of scenery and a GPS to find the plate. He's not a top prospect here after the past two years.

Because Shields is under control for two seasons and isn't turning that franchise around. He is a solid number two pitcher and that's it. Myers is already an upgrade over Frenchy which is a huge need by the way. So you gave up three out of your four best prospects for a good pitcher and a bullpen arm. Congrats. If you are the Reds, I get it, if you are the Royals I have no idea what you are doing.

She's list is a better comparison than yours and even yours has very few "busts" on it.

Of course she's list is better for your argument; whenever you get to artificially select a smaller amount of names it almost always works out in your own favor. I've just showed you 5 years of the absolute best prospects in baseball. 20 names. 7 of them are busts. That's a 35% failure rate, AGAIN, of the very best prospects in baseball.

It's not hyperbole at all unless you think a 72-win team can miraculously turn things around by simply adding James Shields and a couple #5 starters. For them to contend, they need everything to go their way. They don't have anywhere near the talent of a team like Detroit. It's not exaggeration, just the facts.

You say they couldn't afford a guy like Sanchez, but they absolutely could have if they hadn't thrown money away on Guthrie and Santana. And you of course glossed over the other thing I said, that they could have kept Myers and traded lesser prospects for a guy like Gavin Floyd -- you're telling me that wouldn't have been a MUCH better decision had they done that?

There are so many other viable things KC could've done other than trading the MiLB POTY to get better this year. That's all I'm trying to say.

It's not hyperbole at all unless you think a 72-win team can miraculously turn things around by simply adding James Shields and a couple #5 starters. For them to contend, they need everything to go their way. They don't have anywhere near the talent of a team like Detroit. It's not exaggeration, just the facts.

You say they couldn't afford a guy like Sanchez, but they absolutely could have if they hadn't thrown money away on Guthrie and Santana. And you of course glossed over the other thing I said, that they could have kept Myers and traded lesser prospects for a guy like Gavin Floyd -- you're telling me that wouldn't have been a MUCH better decision had they done that?

There are so many other viable things KC could've done other than trading the MiLB POTY to get better this year. That's all I'm trying to say.

Prospects are never a sure thing. You know what probably is a sure thing, however? That paying Jeff Francoeur $7 million to play RF is a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad idea.

I'd rather have Shields than Sanchez. I'd rather have Shields than Floyd.

And they didn't need one SP, they needed four.

You have to look at it, however, as Shields vs Sanchez (Floyd, whomever) and Myers. I'd rather overpay Sanchez at SP and have Myers making the minimum in RF than trade for Shields and have Francoeur in RF for $7 million (and some cheaper free agent SP, or Montgomery or Odorizzi in the long-term) and Ervin Santana in the rotation for $13 million.

Basically, I think a bunch of bad contracts given out in past years and in this offseason forced Dayton Moore's hand into making a move that, while it might pay off to have a team approaching .500 in 2013, is a spectacularly bad decision for the long term for Kansas City. By 2015, they might have Davis in the rotation or pen still; but Shields could get a bigger contract elsewhere; while Myers is just getting arbitration for the first time Tampa after a couple solid years in RF; Francoeur could be out of the sport altogether; while Odorizzi and Montgomery might be having some success for the Rays (and as Doub and others have pointed out, perhaps less Montgomery there and more Odorizzi).

That's six of nine I'd rather have royals. And giving the benefit to Beckham. And Hosmer certainly has a brighter future than Konerko.

What?

The Royals have all these awesome hitters, yet they were still 12th in the league in runs scored, while the Sox were fourth.

Unlike a lot of people here, I do like the Shields trade for KC. But I don't think the Royals have as good a lineup as the Sox. No way. I'd be willing to bet you the Sox score more runs than KC again this year.

Obviously, the Royals are younger and therefore have more future upside. But this isn't about the future. It's about right now.

And, BTW, Giavotella had one home run and 15 RBIs in 53 games last year. For all of Beckham's faults, he's clearly the more accomplished player. Ramirez was more productive than Escobar was last year, even in a down season, and Keppinger hit about 80 points higher than Moustakas and had a higher OPS as well.

P.S., De Aza is a better player than Cain too.

There has to be some reason the Sox scored so many more runs than the Royals, and it's not because KC is better than them at six of nine positions.

Well on that we can agree, and looking at their roster they have maybe two starters that should be starting playoff games. That's only okay if you've got a murderer's row on offense. They've unfortunately got something closer to the opposite.